Re: Debian and relational/additional "projects/imaginatives/discussions" ?
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 10:27:51PM +0200, Daniel Mose wrote:
> Eric G. Miller wrote:
> > You might want to proof read your own writing. The word
> > "imaginative" is an adjective, not a noun, for instance.
> >
> I am aware of that imaginative is an adjective in most cases. ( that
> is, 99% of the time it is used ) When I refer to "Imaginatives", or
> "an imaginative" though it actually becomes objectivized, or
> subjectivized if you rather prefer this. When I use it together with
> slashes, I point out how this word belong in my document, So as I see
> it I actually redefine the word imaginative.
Sorry, I'm too dense. An imaginative == a fantasy ???
> You actually understood the of by me described context, otherwhise you
> wouldn't have written to me complaining about that I was using a word
> in a wrong context.
>
> You could look at the word Imaginative from more directions than one:
> _____ ______
> Imagin<-->ative for example, or Imagi<-->native
> I will not explain any differences in meaning, I'm just pointing out
> inter pretation possibilities.
Again, I'll have to say I'm just too stupid to understand what you're
getting at.
> You might consider me to be a moron for using some words in a totally new
> context, or for making up words that are totally unheard of before.
No. "Moron" isn't the word I'd use. Quixotic is close, but not quite
right either... Maybe, troll?
> But then you will have to consider that William Shakespeare designed
> half, or more of the known modern english language. If he was a moron as
> well, then I'm in very good company. =)
Bill was rather inventive, but giving him credit for half the English
language is a stretch.
> I'm not proposing to a discussion about document spelling or document
> grammar for this matter, or if the word that people writes down could
> be found in a dictionary or not. Neither do I think that a document
> should get a high "nomination degree" because of that the language it
> uses has reached a level of abstraction where it can not be
> comprehended by others than trained scollars.
Yea, probably few people enjoy trying to decipher ivory tower texts.
But, it's usually the lingo that makes such texts so unreadable. I
don't see how inventing new words or meanings isn't doing the same thing
that ivory tower academicians do to fortify their towers of babel.
> The discussion I would like to participate in and perhaps create as a
> project Can be somewhat explained by using One Single Line of Text:
>
> How to make sure that what one is writing will make full sense to
> one's readers.
See, this is the where it all breaks down. Generally you want to avoid
highly stylized language in technical documents, and certainly one
should avoid creative new meanings whenever possible. Such things just
make life tougher for the reader because terminology is unfamiliar or
used in an ambiguous manner. It's fine for poetry...
Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gamble in the wabe...
(quoted from memory... might be off a little)
Anyway, know your audience. If you don't, you shall surely fail.
Ciao,
--
Eric G. Miller <egm2@jps.net>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: